Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Climate rage

Digby asks why the anti-climate-change types are so angry, then approvingly links to Amanda Marcotte, who says that it’s all about annoying liberals.

I don’t agree, although that’s clearly part of it.

The rage, by the way, is amazing. Nothing gets me as many crazed emails and comments as any reference to climate change. The anti-global-warming people are just filled with hate for anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of scientists are right.

And that in turn suggests that annoying liberals isn’t the whole story; no, they’re not enjoying themselves.

What I think is that we’re looking at two cultural issues.

First, environmentalism is the ultimate “Mommy party” issue. Real men punish evildoers; they don’t adjust their lifestyles to protect the planet. (Here’s some polling to that effect.)

Second, climate change runs up against the anti-intellectual streak in America. Remember, just a few years ago conservatives were triumphantly proclaiming that Bush was a great president because he didn’t think too much:

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He’s normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He’s not exotic. But if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help. He’ll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, “Where’s Sally?” He’s responsible. He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.

So they’re outraged, furious, at the notion that they have to listen to guys who talk in big words rather than sports metaphors.

Look, there’s a faint echo of all this on the left — people who are outraged at the idea that we’re going to make saving the planet basically a business decision, aligning private incentives with environmental goals so that doing the right thing becomes a profit opportunity rather than a moral duty. That, I think, is what’s behind the furor over cap and trade.

But it’s the anti-environmental craziness that matters. An important part of the population just doesn’t want to believe in the kind of world in which we have to limit our appetites on the say-so of fancy experts. And so they angrily deny the whole thing.

Mr. Krugman
I am an atni-climate change type, but for the non reasons you so smarmily elucidate. I just know the “science” you are referring to doesn’t add up. And the scientific predictions of what comes next simply add up to conjecture. So Bush didn’t “over think,” no problem- he still made correct decisions. Your argument is the equivalent of “because Al Gore said so….”

The intellectual issue in America is at times rather amusing to say the least. I think what the right-wing has done quite successfully over the years has been to formulate a Mythic America, in which contributions from intellectuals have been minimized, while pretty much painting the entire American landscape with mediocrity. (I know this myth is nothing but a rubbish, as all we need to do is to go back some 200 years ago and look at those guys who have founded the United States of America. They were certainly not the ideal males as portrayed by the right-wing.)

We do not even have to delve deeply into current environmental debates. We still have a sizable number of folks who believe that Earth was 7000 years old, our ancestors and dinosaurs have coexisted, and so on. With this bloc of constituents in place, since they do not even accept basic scientific facts and consensus, would it be asking too much for them to accept environmental problems??? :D

There’s another factor here; it’s one more area where science trumps faith.

Acceptance of global warming theory means you accept that there’s a 500,000,000 year buildup of carbon in the ground, left by all those evloving plants and animals, and that digging much of it out and putting it into the air over a few hundred years makes a difference to a world created by a diety about 6,000 years ago.

How can that be true if the earth is 6,000 years old, and the coal and oil were put there for our use?

An additional factor: religious fundamentalists don’t care or believe in climate change because a) the earth is only a few thousand years old, so these 100000 year old ice cores are fakes; b) its all in god’s hands anyway.

Not sure. In fact I think I’ve never seen so many climate freaks turning away as during this year – they are exhausted – a shame. However, it might be best to think about what we on earth should do to attract more fat cats to invest in protecting us all FROM the climate changes that are sure to come no matter what we do. Both would be a good attack and silence most of the naysayers. Offering profit on both sides of that fence is the answer Paul.

You seem to be confusing environmentalists with Dick Cheney. It was Darth Cheney who said that conserving resources is a moral thing to do. Out here on the left wing, we are way beyond morals; we’re concerned about survival.

We have a saying on the left: Only climate-change deniers drive cars. Obviously, that “important part of the population” that doesn’t want to live in a world where it is necessary to limit their appetites includes many progressives who don’t normally align themselves with the Palin crowd.

Addressing global warming issues also runs counter to the deep-seated American belief that bigger is better — the bigger the car, the bigger the house, the bigger the yacht, the bigger the barbecue, the more ostentatious the level of consumption, the better. Addressing global warming means admitting that one of our bedrock American values is simply wrong.

There may also be a fundamentalist angle to it: God gave us this planet to do with as we choose, and He will provide no matter how many resources we use, or how much environmental degradation we commit.

The rage feeds into the ‘no limits’ crowd that ascended with Reaganism – dominated by not wanting to drive 55, not wanting EPA regulations, hating windfall-profits tax on oil, no-zoning growth and sprawl except in their gated communities.

It is exactly what Bush-Cheney encapsulated, symbolizes one-world trilateralism for the fundamentalists, and epitomizes global government.

Indeed, if objective science and empiric evidence proves them wrong, then they will abandon science and cling to dogma – reminds me of what someone said today about “it’s gonna be a fight to the death.”

Come on. Can’t you see a sliver of justification in being wary of a market speculating on the ups and downs of carbon emission permits, when what the planet needs is a substantial reduction of atmospheric carbon?

Gee to us average folk without three letters after our name, $70 billion seems like a lot of money.

I wish I could fathom the logic of artificially creating anything in economics beyond making it appear as if politicians have any idea they know what they are doing.

Please, please explain to us mere mortals why we should not be worried about all the debt we are building up in the world and how our children and grandchildren will be able to afford to buy anything after they pay their taxes.

I retired last year and while I have a good pension and not too much to worry about, my property taxes just went up by 50% and more to come as the government shifts costs to the state and the state to the municipalities.

How does the more average person cope with that living on Social Security and perhaps some savings and no pension. Sooner or later this spending catches up, just like the person who took a mortgage equal to their monthly income and figured out too late they couldn’t make payments.

The conservative mind is almost impossible to pick apart and understand. They exist in an alternative reality, where government spending hurts the economy, tax cuts increase tax revenues, there are almost no uninsured Americans (as long as you ignore illegal immigrants), global warming is a lie, the economic collapse was caused by too much regulation and too many taxes (and, of course, CRA/you know who).

I could go on and on, but there is a religious quality to their view of the world. No amount of fact or evidence can contradict anything. It seems to be based on belief and dogma. Underneath it all is a psychopathic rightwing authoritarianism. Although I doubt this is precisely how their mind works, I have come up with a simple way to figure out what the conservative position on something is: take the best route and do the opposite.

It seems as though they come into things with an ideological view and make up whatever facts are necessary. Take the CRA. The fact that the recession was caused by the fatal collapse of conservative economic dogma is a bit inconvenient. Blaming CRA allows them to blame liberalism, big government, you-know-who, and interference in the ‘free market’.

I think human caused global warming is real, is significant, and we need to deal with it now. And I’m also a liberal.

But with my science training, I can also be appalled by what I’ve read in the various emails and the code.

That is, I think Phil Jones and some others have been bad actors, unethical, and without scientific integrity, and I really recommend you reread Richard Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science to understand why.

Here is a comment I posted to Media Matters a few hours ago:

Well, sadly, I think Phil Jones and some of those around him do show signs of one particular cult, and that is the Cargo Cult.

Please compare what Richard Feynman said was the role of the scientist in society, and the ethical duties a scientist owes society, and other scientists with Phil Jones statements. Especially those regarding data disclosure and scientific integrity. I see no reason that anyone should defend his horrible behavior — I think he has set back science and scientific integrity in the public’s mind by at least 25 years.

Phil Jones:

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow an tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
”

There’s a lot more. I believe human caused global climate change is a big deal and we need to act now. I also believe that Phil Jones is a bad actor and a huge embarrassment to science and scientific integrity.

It occurs to me that one could an advance an argument like this to global warming deniers: What do you think are the odds that the planet is warming? If they respond something above zero, then one can point out that because the stakes are so high–imagine NYC after the Greenland ice cap collapses–it behooves us to insure against it by taking concrete actions.

If you can even get people to agree that the stakes are high, even if they think the odds are zero, then you are halfway home, in a sense.

Today the big news is of hackers attacking a computer system and actually physically breaking into the office of one professor — ALL to stop Copenhagen.

And yet, if you read more of the reports, the physical break ins occurred over a year ago, and most people will acknowledge that hacking attempts are a dime a dozen. Until they release logs of what the hackers were attempting, there is very little reason to think it was nasty environmentalist deniers as opposed to garden variety miscreants.

//www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282
“The office break-ins took place late last year, Mr. Weaver said, while the other alleged hacking attempts at his colleagues’ offices — all unsuccessful — took place within the past few months.”

Almost half of Americans don’t believe in evolution, and some of them are quite vociferous about it. Evolution has at least an order of magnitude more evidence behind it than global warming. So if someone is already a bit crazy about rejecting Darwin, they’ll take it up to eleven when it comes to rejecting climate change.

It is certainly unfortunate that doubt has been cast on the scientific rigor of the data collected on global warming. The real impact of the ostensibly fudged data is minimal but the appearance of scientists trying to “fake” their results is terrible.

I would just add that one very sensitive place the climate debate hits is the American gas tank. I would wager that many of the ragers are deeply and emotionally invested in their right to drive their vehicles as much and as fast as possible.
Any government regulation that would affect this “right” is seen as tantamount to Communism

“The anti-global-warming people are just filled with hate for anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of scientists are right.”

And I’m not filled with hate, but I do remember Feynman on Millikan:

“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for theviscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?

It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
”

Feynman is describing actual occurrences both of groupthink AND of political correctness. When I add that into Phil Jones’, et. al., bad behavior for refusing to release data to critics, yeah, it does make me wonder how big a problem this really is, and if so many scientists may have been taken in by groupthink and political correctness.

It happens, especially when there is big money to be made and when scientists allow the science to become politicized. Which Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt clearly did.

I agree with your basic assumption, the reason the right has problems with the idea of climate change is it’s a social issue, backed up by science. Since they can’t turn this particular social issue into one of morality/religion (unlike abortion rights, gay marriage, etc.) it has to be denied, otherwise all those other social issues that are supported by science/logic rather than religion would have to be re-examined.
Please as an aside, we as a species do not have to ‘save the planet’. The planet will be here until; the sun blows up. What we need to be concerned with is the extinction/diminution of the human species. If that isn’t something that we can all get behind then there is no hope for our descendants.

I think it’s because global climate change is something that is largely invisible as yet (if you’re not a polar bear or a Pacific islander). The arguments are built on models of what MIGHT happen. And the solution is expensive.

I was a teenager when “Limits To Growth” came out, and I fell for it hook line and sinker. Took the Meadows’s course, learned Dynamo, examined their world model, the whole bit. And look how that turned out.

The USA became what it became because God created it with plenty of carbon to burn. Plenty of oil, plenty of coal, plenty of gas. This Act of Allah was doubled with carbon burning rage.

Let’s not forget that the Spanish Navy was blocking the straights. So Franco’s fascist army needed to fly over, and for this, Hitler needed oil. It was graciously provided by Texaco. Just a small vignette on how the plutocrats of the USA were able to extend their influence all over, and create the American Century, as Allah wanted it.

Make no mistake. Here is another vignette. Harriman became Hero of the Soviet Union, having transferred know how and direct investment to Stalin’s Caspian Sea oil. Hitler also bestowed on him his highest decoration.

As carbon burning gets crucified, so does the USA. Indeed, the USA is still the Saudi Arabia of coal. Astute are those patriots who want the carbon burning catastrophe! Besides, climate heating is going to lead to a world war, and world wars have proven a great way for the USA to boost itself… Too bad one has to be so blatant about it, though…